Travis County Commissioners Court
January 21, 2009
Item 13
13. Consider and take appropriate action on the following requests: a, reconsideration of the list of transportation projects Travis County submitted to the capital area metropolitan planning council as part of the region's response to the federal economic stimulus package and deletion of the reimers peacock road project in southwest Travis County.
>> good morning. Joe gieselman with the transportation and natural resources department. This was really not to be scheduled until next Tuesday. They were going to bring back the entire list of projects that Travis County was going to submit for the economic stimulus project. We were told by campo that at least for the transportation element of that economic stimulus poj, that we needed to have ours in actually last Friday so that campo could consider that. Understand these are going to be federal funds, a portion of which will go toward transportation projects, not all of it, but some of it. Because of that the mpo's involved in selecting what projects get submitted for the package. So we want to be in that package to be in that report today. That's why tnr is here today and you will see them come back next Tuesday with the rest of the package. Now, we've also learned -- this really is in motion. It seems like last week everyday we were receiving new guidelines or new information anyway about what criteria might be used to select just the transportation projects. We were -- I spoke with bob day, who is the district judiciary with txdot and he affirmed that that for the projects to comply with federal funding it had to go through the national environmental action process, like we do when we apply for federal funds for a project, we will go through the entirely environmental process before we do it. And we periodically ask campo for money for that purpose. But otherwise our bond projects do not. And so what we submitted to the court and the court approved by and large was that nature, not nepa qualified projects. So our concern was we had a list of promgz that perhaps none of will wynn get qualified for the stimulus project. Perhaps we ought to bring back a list that have the type of projects that would qualify. So what you see in today's package, we haven't retrieved -- we haven't rescinded our old list because we don't know ultimately what criteria will be used. But we have good information that we might not get those projects approved. So we've come back with a b list that don't need nepa qualifications, they don't need nepa clearance. Those are the variety of resurfacing and repaving projects within the existing right-of-way. Those are not of a nature that caused environmental impact and so typically they're not required to have the nepa clearance. That's what we're asking the court to do today is add that b list to the one already submitted and then also in the list is to delete the reimers peacock road project from the request for economic stimulus. That is two parts. One, whereas we have the engineering design near completion, it's about 90% complete, we do not have the right-of-way acquired, so it is not exactly shovel ready. And the other part of that is it did not receive nepa clearance either. But the other issue is that there's some concern that we not incent the construction of reimers peacock road before safety improvements were done to state highway 71. Those improvements are probably not going to happen for another year to two years. We've got some indication from txdot that they have projects scheduled in the 2010, 2011 period. These projects need to be underway in nine months, at least 50 percent approximate percent of themwurnd way in nir construction and funding, construction bidding, and a very short period of time. The other 50% have to be out the door in six months. So that's a pretty fast track. Mind you we're submitting along with every other local government in central Texas, so the competition is fierce. We're told by the npo director this that he already has between 10 and 12 times more projects than he can anticipate funding. So we're hopeful and we're certainly competitive, but we also need to calibrate our expectations that we're not going to get all of these funned. We may get some of them funded. We're hopeful, but in the final analysis it will be campo's recommendation and probably some selection on the part of the txdot and the federal government on what ultimately gets selected. Now, at the risk of igniting a whole other debate, I need to tell Commissioner Davis that we did get copied on the npo's list that 290 east is on there twice. It is on there in its original format as a 5 some-odd-million-dollar -- a hundred some-odd-million-dollar project and it's still listed as toll, but I have talked directly with bob daigh and he said the project that's being submitted, an alternate project because the 290 project had not been nepa cleared. They have another project --
>> hold on. The 290 project what now?
>> just like ours, had not been through the nepa process, have not been totally cleared for the environmental clearance. The ctrma has submitted a project, which is basically just ramps on 290 at 183. And those are not tolled. And so they're an improvement to 290, but not a toll type improvement. And that is a second project on the list that's now on the campo list. I can't tell you, quite frankly, what will become of that project in the final analysis, but I did tell you I think by phone that my indications were that 290 was not going to be on the list. It is still on the list from what we've seen this morning. So -- but in two different ways.
>> well, that was part of my concern. And again, I want to request in writing from bob daigh with txdot for this region, in writing, that if -- in the nepa process, and the federal highway administration is saying that they will not waive nepa process proceedings, I'd like to have that in writing. I'm getting to the point where some of the things that I'm looking at here may come back to haunt some folks in eastern Travis County who do not want -- who never accepted that toll from 183 at 290 to sh 130 and points east of that. They have not accepted that and they haven't approved it, period. And even during the public hearing on a lot of these things, they weren't even allowed to testify in the public setting. Now, my concern is still this. As far as the stimulus package money -- and again, let me go back to this other point. What I looked at and what I read in most of the summary, it said that this particular usage of some of the stimulus money would not be outside of the footprint of an existing -- of existing roads. So added capacity is what I think I harped on, and if this added capacity is to add those other lanes to toll road situations that in precinct 1, of course, I would like to have that deleted off this particular project. 5' $4 million -- it was $504 million that was initially indicated it would go for this whole project. Of course, there are a lot of other things that we have looked at, and of course even with the particular attachment a that we are looking at as far as some of the top priorities that's to go before campo for their consideration, the 290 east situation is not even listed there. So my question to you is if 290 east is going to be considered, how and where will it be considered? Would it end up going through a txdot initiative or whose initiative? Because I do know that the folks over there don't want that at all in my precinct now. So I'd like to maybe give it the same consideration that we're giving to the other item, that we're considering here today. So can you answer that question for me?
>> number one, I want to make it clear that from our standing it's whether or not -- whether or not it's been nepa qualified, not added capacity. There are projects that probably have nepa clearance that are added capacity, so I want to just make sure that you understand that there can be. Had u.s. 290 been environmentally cleared it would have qualified for the economic stimulus program. And in the final analysis, the rules are still being made about what qualifies and what doesn't, so I'm not sure even that statement is correct until the dust settles. With regard to initiative, it is the state and/or the ctrma that would initiate a project or request a project on 2 sniept be funded with economic stimulus program, but on the other hand, it will be the campo or the mpo who will approve the list for federal funding. So there is -- even though only the state can ask for it to be funded, the mpo will have some role in whether or not it remains on the list.
>> all right. Let's praik this down. Let's break it down. The united states senator (indiscernible) has suggested that $85 billion will be looked at in this -- I guess it's for the entire nation. At infrastructure, road and bridge stimulus package deal. And of that $85 million, $30.2 million is to go for road and bridges. That's across the entire country. All the competing entities in the nation will be competing for that $30.2 million, billion dollars rather as far as the stimulus package deal. However, in the state of Texas itself, what it's really been boiled down to is about $2.5 billion that will have to be -- I don't want to say squabbled over, but everybody will have their hands in the pot to try to get what they feel will be used in their area as far as the state of Texas, 2.5 billion out of the total of $85 billion that should be shared throughout the nation. Of the stimulus package situation. Now, we have some projects that again I've looked at that we are looking at as far as going before campo, and we might as well throw everything in there. $31 million for some jo are projects, and I'm not going to go through that, it's going before campo. So it's going to be -- and the other mpo's in the state of Texas have done the same thing. It appears that the request that's being made from other mpo's or things that are coming in, a lot of these things are basically for maintenance, improvement, paving projects and things like that, but within the footprint. Now, my concern is in a I don't feel that any of the stimulus package money should go on tolls road type situations. Now, again, we have a clear list of things that you have presented and a clear list of things that we've looked at. Some of them are roads and then we have others that the county is looking at that are not road. They're other subject matter. But at the end of the day it's going to be a big squabble for this 2-point a billion dollars that's -- $2.5 billion that's associated throughout the state of Texas. And I hope that what I'm saying is correct as far as the assignment of the money. If that's incorrect, somebody correct me. So that's where it stands now, so it appears to me that we have a lot other things that we need to be considering other than allowing -- and then again, it may come to the point where txdot, we don't really know who is going to end up getting the assignment of this money. It may be txdot. Maybe the money is all going to go to the Texas transportation folks. We don't really know that. I guess the decision is going to have to be made sooner or later as far as who is going to be in charge of the money that's going to be spent out of this particular stimulus package deal. Now, my question is when will we know who will actually be -- sitting in the captain's chair of the disbursement of the stimulus package money that's assigned basically for the state of Texas of $2.5 billion and here in this region, who will that assignment be to? Or will it be txdot throughout the whole state of Texas? Do we know that.
>> if I were guessing, and you have the proposal here and I think it's probably a pretty good guideline for what's going to happen. In this he says in terms of funds distribution, he says, distribute federal aid highway funds to the state and cities pursuant to existing statutory highway formula under the safe and accountable, flexible, efficient, transportation equity act. It says a percentage of these fund will be suballocated to the larger metropolitan areas. So what he's saying there is they're going to use existing distribution channels to get this stimulus package out and spent. That means it will go to the state, the mpo's will have some authority to program it, and they're expecting then the state to execute to get these things out under contract, just like they would -- just like they do right now under the current process that administers federal funds. It means that if Travis County is successful, then we will end up having a contract with the state of Texas to receive a portion of these funds for selected projects and that we will need to have them under construction in 90 days. And that whatever mandate they get from congress they will pass on to the local governments. If we do not do that, then the funds will automatically go back to the state for reprogramming or go back to the mpo. So I'm thinking that the model that they're going to use is the model that's already set up and that all these states, all the dot's around the country are primed to get things under contract very quickly. That's probably going to tilt toward things that are more of the maintenance type than on large new added capacity unless those things are absolutely ready to go, probably would have gone out the door anyway without the economic stimulus stuff. So that's my best guess at what's going to happen.
>> well, one concern, joe, that has been -- I guess been asked, and that is the stimulus package is supposed to create jobs. And I notice that in some of the assessments of what we're looking at as far as the summary, we're talking about seven to maybe 22 odd jobs per million dollars. If we sent this to campo and campo accept what we're putting as the number of jobs that are created. But what I'm also hearing is that the jobs -- maximizing the number of jobs for the limited amount of funds that's being made available, some folks are saying that this is all public oversight, and of course it would benefit those that are in the public sector whereby others are saying that the job creation should also help the private sector as much as possible to bring about the relief that these stimulus packages are supposed to bring. Now, my question is has this been divided into -- as far as job creation, whoever is in the captain's seat, whether it's txdot, whether it's campo, whoever it is, whoever is -- whoever gets that decision as far as whatever they're going to do, have they broken down the jobs, private, public relationship, these many jobs will be private, these many jobs will be public? Have any of that been thrown into the mix or is it even being considered? Because those are some of the things that have come to my attention is the creation of jobs, but where will they all be created? Will they all be created at the government, for government employees? Or will there be private opportunities for employment where a lot of relief is needed all across the board as far as persons having jobs in the private sector?
>> I can tell you from the county's perspective, it's all private. We would turn around and contract it out.
>> okay.
>> and have competitive bids on the paving projects as we do right now.
>> I wanted to bring this point up.
>> my sense is the state is going to do absolutely the same thing. They're going to contract out to private contractors and get the work done.
>> joe, we have given campo a list of projects.
>> we have. Because of their deadlines, we went ahead and sent this list ahead.
>> on that list that the court approved, we asked for stimulus funding for 290 east.
>> no, we did not. Well, --
>> the court voted to do that.
>> on priorities.
>> is that list still at campo?
>> yes. We also sent them a list of Travis County projects.
>> but on our initial list, 290 east, funded with stimulus money from the federal government, is still on there? Because I think we should argue at campo to leave it on that list. But you are saying that if that is not approved -- and the projects that have not gone through the nepa project are excluded, then you have an attachment b that we ought to recommend.
>> you will likely see some b lists submitted by txdot.
>> no problem. Today on our agenda, though, there is your b list.
>> our b list are purely Travis County projects.
>> that's my point.
>> that's why I move approval of it.
>> great.
>> this motion is for us to keep the list that we've already submitted.
>> right.
>> but if campo and the state excludes some of those projects, then we're saying here is Travis County's b list. This motion basically is to authorize submission of that or ratification of submission.
>> and the other is to delete from the one the court has already approved, delete one project, reimers peacock.
>> all right. My motion covers a now.
>> then you're absolutely correct. We're not rescinding what we already submitted, we're adding a b list of projects that did not -- would not require nepa clearance.
>> any discussion of that motion?
>> well, does your motion, judge, include -- because what I'm looking at, I do not see on my list the 290 east project. I have attachment a.
>> it sure does. Because we voted two or three weeks ago --
>> well, I'm going to request -- my substitute motion is that it be deleted -- I'll make a substitute motion that the 290 east project on this thing be deleted just as we'll look at the reimers peacock as we're going to try to delete that one also from the list. So that will be my substitute motion.
>> I'll second for the purposes of discussion.
>> motion and a second, basically to pull 290 east from the list of projects requested for stimulus funding.
>> right.
>> seconded by Commissioner eckhardt.
>> our previous vote that included 290 east was in reference to 290 east in terms of the campo project included in our long range plan, is that correct?
>> that's correct.
>> and in the submission it didn't state -- it did not state whether stimulus money would be used for the project. It did not require that the project be a toll or not toll.
>> the motion was a request for stimulus money. Because I clarified it during the meeting, and that's what we voted on, and we can pull the minutes from the last session. So we're here now, the substitute as I take it, to be consistent with 13-a, which is posted, is if we don't want to request stimulus money for 290 east, we can pull it off that list. I think that would be counterproductive, but if the majority of the court wants to do it, so be it. The way for it not to be tolled is to figure out another way to fund it, and the stimulus money is the way now.
>> correct. And in our previous discussion, there was also mentioned that the toll road covenants require that if alternative funding is found for the project, that tolls should be rolled back, reduced or eliminated if superior funding is found.
>> but the point is, though, that when this came up before campo, the campo board decided to use 183-a money to fund this particular project. Now, that's what was voted on. And of course, during that time the community came out in strong opposition, and as they still oppose, as I sit in this chair today for that not to be -- the toll itself. And also I guess the funding because there was toll opposition and there still are. Now, why would we pull a vote against reimers peacock to be deleted from the list and we don't give the same consideration to precinct 1's situation as far as stimulus package money being used, which was not -- I don't believe that in the wisdom of a lot of these folks, I don't believe they wanted this to go associated with tolls. I refuse to believe that. Now, I hear what we're saying, but I do not believe that u.s. Senator (indiscernible) is aware that this mpo here in Travis County is using stimulus package money to accommodate this as a toll. I may be wrong, but I don't think so.
>> procedurally the question is whether we consider the substitute motion first. So by voting yes, the vote is to consider the substitute motion. If this is voted down, we go back to the original motion. All in favor --
>> can we restate the substitute motion?
>> the substitute motion is to delete u.s. 290 east added capacity for stimulus package money to be used for that particular project for 290 east from 183 all the way to I guess -- wherever the boundary of sh 130, frontage road.
>> to pull 290 east off the stimulus package.
>> just one question. If it's pulled, then does it still get considered for -- at campo in the long-term plan?
>> well, it stays on as a toll road.
>> but if it doesn't get symptom must money and it's not -- stimulus money and it's not part of the campo plan, then does it become a local project?
>> number one, this vote is purely on source of funding. It will stay on the campo agenda for economic stimulus for the campo vote. Travis County would go to that with whatever comes out of this motion. That doesn't change the plan whatsoever. It will be still on the plan. There will be a separate vote altogether if they want to take 290 out of the transportation plan and even that would make it a local project, it would just mean it wouldn't be a project at all. So the -- and it leaves in the question of just how any improvements to 290 will be done ultimately. If you're not going to do it with economic stimulus, you're not going to do it with toll roads, just how will it be improved if people want it improved.
>> so did precinct 1 residents want 290 as long as it was not a toll road?
>> listen, Commissioner, let me say this to you. And the folks in that community have felt and they've expressed it to me, even during the night of the vote that was taken at campo, they were not even allowed to participate in the public hearing. Now, that in my --
>> the answer to your question is residents want 290 east, but they don't want it tolled? In terms of public hearings, there were four public hearings before the campo meeting. I would have allowed comments myself, but I wasn't presiding, but there were four separate public hearings that everybody was invited to go and give comments on and a lot of folks did.
>> and they opposed.
>> but this will not be a local project without some special, unique circumstances because it's a state arterial.
>> okay.
>> so the substitute -- the question is whether we consider the substitute motion. It doesn't matter to me except if it's not funded by stimulus money it goes back to the toll road list. And if there's another action by campo at some point in the future, it can be taken off of that. So all in favor of considering the substitute motion first, say aye.
>> hold on, judge. I would still like to make another comment on discussion.
>> no, sir. We're going to vote on the motion. The question really is whether to consider substitute motion. All in favor raise your hand. Commissioner Davis and Commissioner Gomez want to consider the substitute motion. All against? Commission ers eckhardt, huber and yours truly. We're back to the original motion made by the county judge, and that is basically to leave the list at campo that we've already sent, but to add joe's b as an alternative list if those projects already submitted are excluded.
>> and I still second it.
>> seconded by Commissioner Gomez. Any discussion of that motion?
>> yes. I'd like to maybe vote on everything else but that 290 east project.
>> you can't do that. That's already been done. We have decided that and discuss it had at length.
>> legal, can I do that? I'd like to get a legal opinion.
>> you've already voted on the substitute motion.
>> because I'm not in favor of that being on this -- 290 being --
>> I think your legal option would be to vote against this current motion that's on the table.
>> all right.
>> I hate to do that. I've got a lot of projects on here, folks, but I just don't feel that the stimulus package money, and I'm going to say what I want to say.
>> you have said it multiple times today.
>> well, I'm going to say it again.
>> you have said it previously and we all know you are againsttology 290 east. There's no question about that.
>> but it's unfortunate that you have to vote against something because of the fact that you don't agree. This decision is going to be made by the campo board. The three people on the campo board, the judge, Commissioner eckhardt and now new Commissioner huber. That's the only ones on the board that we have representation for Travis County. I think there's 20 some-odd folks on this board.
>> there are four members of the Austin city council on campo.
>> right.
>> that's seven of us in all from Travis County.
>> the point is that it's made up of these folks and of course we don't have the majority vote and it will be a squabble. So I'm just going to abstain on this one, but --
>> all in favor of the motion?
>> I just really --
>> I'm sorry, your honor, I'm sorry to belabor this. May I make one comment before we vote? While I too am very much an opponent to polling as mechanism for 290 east, the stimulus package is a possibility, albeit remote, that we would have an alternative financing option for added capacity to 290 east. It is a remote possibility, but a possibility that bears exploring. And therefore I am not in favor of removing 290 east from our previous submission, which frankly was -- it's not a Travis County project. We were simply nodding to the campo list that we felt may meet the criteria that we still do not know what that criteria will be. So I don't mean this vote to be a vote of confidence in tolling. It is a vote of hope in an alternative financing structure with the help of the federal government.
>> I'd like for the record to reflect that I agree with Commissioner eckhardt's sentiments.
>> all in favor of the motion? Show Commissioners eckhardt, Gomez, huber and yours truly voting in favor.
>> Commissioner Davis abstaining.
>> b is deletion of the reimers peacock road project in southwest Travis County.
>> second.
>> I move.
>> second. When we put this project on there, we put it on there so we could do the design, figure out the alignment and at the appropriate time get it constructed. Hopefully the private sector will construct it. If not, as development occurs, the county will consider doing it. Before the county would do it, we would go to voters, right, joe?
>> that's correct.
>> as part of voter referendum. We put it on there because it's one of our potential projects, but really we have committed to design it, figure out the alignment so we could get right-of-way dedication as soon as possible. And then in time due to construction, and that's why in my view this is consistent with our position in the past on reimers peacock and the stimulus package projects. So that's why I'm supporting taking it off. This is a small project in the grand scheme of things also. Any more discussion of the motion?
>> I'd just like to say this. Yes, I would like to say that I really feel betrayed in this particular regard of how we can take things off of projects that's not acceptable on the west side of town, and when it comes to the eastern part of Travis County, those projects are left where the folks in the community have to bear the burden. It doesn't appear to be fair in my mind highway we separate this county on such issues. I think if we're going to do things, we ought to be consistent and one for all. I really do feel betrayed by this court, by allowing one project to go through on the western side as far as being deleted, and when it came to the eastern side of Travis County, then of course it's all right to let it go through on the eastern side. And don't respect the wishes of the Commissioner that represents that area.
>> Commissioner Davis, I would just like to say that I appreciate the concerns about 290 east, and feel strongly along the same lines that you do, but what I'd like to say is I believe this is a little bit apples and orpgz because this is an immediate safety issue concern as it relates to highway 71 west, which is very dangerous highway. The road remains on the campo 2030 plan, reimers peacock does. It is definitely for future consideration, but -- in the short-term it is a safety issue for the dangerous highway 71.
>> any more discussion? Of the motion? All in favor? Show Commissioners --
>> I'm going to support it.
>> that passes by unanimous vote.
>> I'm a man of my word.
>> can cdbg wait until next week? It cannot wait? Thank god it's a quick item.
The Closed Caption log for this Commissioners Court agenda item is provided by Travis County Internet Services. Since this file is derived from the Closed Captions created during live cablecasts, there are occasional spelling and grammatical errors. This Closed Caption log is not an official record the Commissioners Court Meeting and cannot be relied on for official purposes. For official records please contact the County Clerk at (512) 854-4722.
Last Modified:
Tuesday, January 21, 2009 2:03 PM